Orange-Haired Orangutan Dominating Republican Party

[knot]

^Obama's 'political correctness and islamophilia'?
Is this about his refusal to say 'Islamic terrorism'? How is that loving Islam?

It's much more than that. Just look at his knee-jerk reaction to the "clock boy" thing. He invited a hoaxster to the white house, and ended up looking like a fool.

Many feel their intelligence is being insulted when Obama says things like "Islam is a religion of peace", so they end up gravitating towards the guy who will at least speak honestly about the issue. As far as I can tell, all democratic candidates are sucking up to Islam for some reason, and this inability to name the problem might lose them the election..

And how does not saying 'Islamic terrorism' do anything but help the President? It would hurt our relationship with our allies in the middle east (many that are fighting ISIS) if the President used that kind of rhetoric.
What good do you think it'd do for him to use the term 'Islamic terrorism', anyway?

Sure, those countries will really be pissed when their backwards ideology and medieval societies finally get called out, but this clash of cultures is pretty much unavoidable, so we might as well just get on with it now.

Also the U.S. is funding both sides of the war on ISIS, so they're not actually serious about stopping terrorism. Syria just seems like a proxy war between Russia and the US

Not to mention, people like Trump never call terrorism inspired by Christianity 'Christian terrorism'. For some reason, that stuff only applies to Islam...

Christian terrorism is real, but it's like 5000 times less likely than Islamic terrorism when you adjust for per capita, so it makes some sense not to mention it

[Red]

Hey did any of you guys see the GOPDebate? Me neither but if you did, tell me what the hell happened!

[EquALLity]

^I didn't watch it in its entirety, but from what I know, the candidates basically had more of the same dumb stuff to say. I'm going to watch it later.

[EquALLity]

It's much more than that. Just look at his knee-jerk reaction to the "clock boy" thing. He invited a hoaxster to the white house, and ended up looking like a fool.

I don't think that that was a knee-jerk reaction. The assumption that that person was a hoaxster wasn't really a reasonable one.

Many feel their intelligence is being insulted when Obama says things like "Islam is a religion of peace", so they end up gravitating towards the guy who will at least speak honestly about the issue.

Well, how are you defining Islam?
Tell me how you're determining definitions of Islam and Christianity, and then on what basis Islam is violent but Christianity isn't.

As far as I can tell, all democratic candidates are sucking up to Islam for some reason,

Sucking up to Islam, by not hypocritically condemning it by using the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' while avoiding 'Christian terrorism', like the republicans?

and this inability to name the problem might lose them the election..

Are you suggesting, like many republicans, that if people simply use the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' that we'll somehow only then be able to defeat ISIS?

If not, why is using the term so important?

Sure, those countries will really be pissed when their backwards ideology and medieval societies finally get called out, but this clash of cultures is pretty much unavoidable, so we might as well just get on with it now.

It's unavoidable that we destroy our relationship with allies in the middle east?
What makes you think that?

Also the U.S. is funding both sides of the war on ISIS, so they're not actually serious about stopping terrorism. Syria just seems like a proxy war between Russia and the US

What do you mean by funding both sides?
Like by being against Iran, when Iran is against ISIS, or something like that?

And how is it a democrat issue? Are the republicans planning on fixing it?

Christian terrorism is real, but it's like 5000 times less likely than Islamic terrorism when you adjust for per capita, so it makes some sense not to mention it

Actually, conservative terrorism is much more common, at least in America. It just rarely gets coverage, and when it does, it's never covered as such. It's never even labeled terrorism, let alone 'Christian' or 'right-wing' terrorism.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/1 ... errorists/

[knot]

I don't think that that was a knee-jerk reaction. The assumption that that person was a hoaxster wasn't really a reasonable one.

He should have waited until more information was out. All he acted on was "brown muslim boy in Texas arrested for bringing suspicious device to school". I mean, doesn't Obama have a huge intelligence team behind him? It would have taken 5 minutes of research to figure out the boy came from a family of pranksters and political shit-stirrers.

Well, how are you defining Islam?
Tell me how you're determining definitions of Islam and Christianity, and then on what basis Islam is violent but Christianity isn't.

Christianity is violent if we look at the Bible, but it's been dragged through a long process of reformation, so Christians today dont believe half the crap that's in the bible anymore. On ther other, Islam is largely unreformed. You have entire societies built around its backwards laws, and if we look at the PEW polls we see that an alarmingly high percentage of Muslims (even the ones living in the west) have dangerous views.

Sucking up to Islam, by not hypocritically condemning it by using the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' while avoiding 'Christian terrorism', like the republicans?

Just look at this tweet from Hillary and you'll know what I mean

Code: Select all

Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Are you suggesting, like many republicans, that if people simply use the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' that we'll somehow only then be able to defeat ISIS?

If not, why is using the term so important?

It won't go away by using the word, no. But failing to identify the root cause of a problem means the problem will never be fully solved.

It's unavoidable that we destroy our relationship with allies in the middle east?
What makes you think that?

Because it's a big embarrassment to be allies with countries like Saudi Arabia. Now with the internet we know what's going on in these countries, and people will keep putting more and more pressure on politicians to either force those countries to stop behaving like savages or to cut all ties to them.

What do you mean by funding both sides?
Like by being against Iran, when Iran is against ISIS, or something like that?

The U.S. has a long history of supporting Wahhabism (radical Sunni Islam, basically same shit as ISIS) because they will fight against Russians. They supported Bin Laden and now they're more or less supporting ISIS by cooperating with the #1 exporter of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia. I view the Middle East as basically one big proxy war between Russia and USA.

And how is it a democrat issue? Are the republicans planning on fixing it?

The democrats don't seem to know what to do about it. They seem to be content with pretending the problem isn't real (see Hillary's tweet )

On the other hand, the republicans probably have a plan of action... most likely a really bad one

Actually, conservative terrorism is much more common, at least in America. It just rarely gets coverage, and when it does, it's never covered as such. It's never even labeled terrorism, let alone 'Christian' or 'right-wing' terrorism.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/1 ... errorists/

Yes, but look at religiously motivated terrorism per follower of that faith, and you will see Islam is many times more dangerous than Christianity (even if you exclude 9/11)

[EquALLity]

He should have waited until more information was out. All he acted on was "brown muslim boy in Texas arrested for bringing suspicious device to school". I mean, doesn't Obama have a huge intelligence team behind him? It would have taken 5 minutes of research to figure out the boy came from a family of pranksters and political shit-stirrers.

Wait, what's up with his family?

I really don't think he had to wait. Come on, the odds that person was a hoaxster were really not high. I don't see why that would even cross a person's mind.

Christianity is violent if we look at the Bible, but it's been dragged through a long process of reformation, so Christians today dont believe half the crap that's in the bible anymore. On ther other, Islam is largely unreformed. You have entire societies built around its backwards laws, and if we look at the PEW polls we see that an alarmingly high percentage of Muslims (even the ones living in the west) have dangerous views.

You didn't really answer my question of how you are defining religion... Is it based solely on the followers?
If so, why? And how do you solve the issue of contradictions in the actions and beliefs of the followers?

Just look at this tweet from Hillary and you'll know what I mean

How is that any worse than the mindset that Christians have nothing to do with the Planned Parenthood shooting that just happened?

It won't go away by using the word, no. But failing to identify the root cause of a problem means the problem will never be fully solved.

That just seems like conservative political rhetoric.

How does not saying 'Islamic terrorism' prevent us from solving the problem? It's just a phrase.

Because it's a big embarrassment to be allies with countries like Saudi Arabia.

Well, why is America allied with Saudi Arabia? Oil.
What party is obsessed with oil, and what party actually cares about the planet?

...now they're more or less supporting ISIS by cooperating with the #1 exporter of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia.

That's complicated, because Saudi Arabia is against ISIS, though they do promote a type of Islam very similar to the type of Islam ISIS follows.

The democrats don't seem to know what to do about it. They seem to be content with pretending the problem isn't real (see Hillary's tweet )

The problem of the possibility of America inadvertently supporting ISIS? What does that have to do with Hillary's tweet?

On the other hand, the republicans probably have a plan of action... most likely a really bad one

Hahaha, I doubt they have a plan at all. The republicans can't get enough oil... they're addicted to Koch, as they say.

Yes, but look at religiously motivated terrorism per follower of that faith, and you will see Islam is many times more dangerous than Christianity (even if you exclude 9/11)

Are you saying that a higher percentage of Muslims are terrorists than Christians?

Why is that relevant, when in the end (in America), right-wing/Christian terrorism is much more prevalent than Islamic terrorism? Since that's what actually impacts our country more, that's what we should be concerned with when it comes to domestic terrorism.

Lets say there are two Buddhists in the country, and one is a terrorist (so 50% are terrorists).
Then, lets say that there are 100,000 Christians in the country, and 10,000 are terrorists (so 10%).
Who do you think we should be more concerned with, the Buddhists or Christians?

[knot]

Wait, what's up with his family?

I really don't think he had to wait. Come on, the odds that person was a hoaxster were really not high. I don't see why that would even cross a person's mind.

His sister has been suspended for making bomb threats, his uncle has a company named "Twin Towers" and his dad is a political shit-stirrer and 9/11 truther. But ignoring all that, it's clear from the eyewitness reports that he was deliberately trolling his teachers with the device trying to get some kind of reaction. Obama, Mark Zuckerberg et al. just reacted to "brown muslim boy arrested" and immediately assumed that he was innocent and his teachers were racist Texan assholes.

You didn't really answer my question of how you are defining religion... Is it based solely on the followers?
If so, why? And how do you solve the issue of contradictions in the actions and beliefs of the followers?

Um, by their holy texts. But that's not too relevant. What matters is if people actually carry out the evil stuff they prescribe. Christians tend to cherry-pick a lot. Muslims generally follow their religion more literally. Plus the ideas of jihad and martyrdom arguably make the Qu'ran more dangerous even if both books were followed to the letter

How is that any worse than the mindset that Christians have nothing to do with the Planned Parenthood shooting that just happened?

It's worse because Islamic terrorism is much more dangerous and mainstream. Denying Christian terrorism when someone shoots up an abortion clinic is stupid. Denying Islamic terrorism is 1000x worse because it's a more serious threat

That just seems like conservative political rhetoric.

How does not saying 'Islamic terrorism' prevent us from solving the problem? It's just a phrase.

How do you solve a problem without realizing what the problem is?

Well, why is America allied with Saudi Arabia? Oil.
What party is obsessed with oil, and what party actually cares about the planet?

I'm not saying global warming isn't more important. It's probably the #1 problem facing us. But liberal democrats should still stop playing hide the ball with regards to Islamism

The problem of the possibility of America inadvertently supporting ISIS? What does that have to do with Hillary's tweet?

The republicans seem more willing to connect the dots on this issue, so I'd expect them to boycott Saudi Arabia sooner. But maybe not, corporate greed seems more or less infinite

Are you saying that a higher percentage of Muslims are terrorists than Christians?

Yes

Why is that relevant, when in the end (in America), right-wing/Christian terrorism is much more prevalent than Islamic terrorism? Since that's what actually impacts our country more, that's what we should be concerned with when it comes to domestic terrorism.

[/quote]

I'd argue the the threat of Islamic terrorism is still much worse because it's a large scale, global phenomenon. It's hard to tell a radical from a moderate Muslim, and I dont believe it's that hard to get into the US.. at least it didn't seem like it when I went there.. but I dont know if the process is different for brown people Also Islamic terrorists have much, much worse intentions than Christian terrorists. GIve both of them the perfect weapon and see how they each use it

[EquALLity]

Sorry this took awhile.

His sister has been suspended for making bomb threats, his uncle has a company named "Twin Towers" and his dad is a political shit-stirrer and 9/11 truther. But ignoring all that, it's clear from the eyewitness reports that he was deliberately trolling his teachers with the device trying to get some kind of reaction. Obama, Mark Zuckerberg et al. just reacted to "brown muslim boy arrested" and immediately assumed that he was innocent and his teachers were racist Texan assholes.

Was this information out there before Obama invited the kid to the white house?

I didn't get the impression that he was trolling his teachers from any coverage. It sounded like he was just showing them his 'invention'.

You didn't really answer my question of how you are defining religion... Is it based solely on the followers?
If so, why? And how do you solve the issue of contradictions in the actions and beliefs of the followers?

Um, by their holy texts. But that's not too relevant. What matters is if people actually carry out the evil stuff they prescribe. Christians tend to cherry-pick a lot. Muslims generally follow their religion more literally. Plus the ideas of jihad and martyrdom arguably make the Qu'ran more dangerous even if both books were followed to the letter

Is that you define religions based on their 'holy' texts? If that's the case, then Christianity and Islam are pretty much equally evil.
I mean, I guess you could say that Islam is slightly more evil, because the Bible is apart of Islam in addition to the Koran...

I agree that Muslims tend to take their religion more seriously (it's kind of funny when Christians make that argument, because they're basically saying that they don't really care about their own religion that much), but why is that relevant to how Islam is defined?
Are you defining religions based on their books, or based on the actions of their followers that are inspired by the religion? Or maybe a combination (in which case, how do you weigh the two?)? Why?

I'm not sure why martyrdom in the Koran is worse than passages in the Bible that command people to stone those who work on the Sabbath (and those who don't follow the rules of Christianity in general).

How do you solve a problem without realizing what the problem is?

America can fight terrorists regardless of what the President calls the terrorism. It wouldn't benefit the President to say 'Islamic terrorism', because it won't impact our fighting against the terrorists.
And it makes sense that he wouldn't, so as to not alienate Islamic countries we are allied with in the fight against terrorism.

Of course, since people are becoming terrorists because of how they perceive their religion, eliminating (not through force) the religion would decrease terrorism... But the government can't do campaigns against Islam.

The republicans seem more willing to connect the dots on this issue, so I'd expect them to boycott Saudi Arabia sooner. But maybe not, corporate greed seems more or less infinite

Are you suggesting that democrats don't condemn the barbaric practices of countries like Saudi Arabia because they are Islamic countries?

I don't think that the republicans are likely to push for a boycott of Saudi Arabia. Their donors come first.

I'd argue the the threat of Islamic terrorism is still much worse because it's a large scale, global phenomenon. It's hard to tell a radical from a moderate Muslim, and I dont believe it's that hard to get into the US.. at least it didn't seem like it when I went there.. but I dont know if the process is different for brown people Also Islamic terrorists have much, much worse intentions than Christian terrorists. GIve both of them the perfect weapon and see how they each use it

Sure, the threat is worse globally, but not domestically. So domestically, we should care more about Christian than Muslim terrorism.
But republicans don't, which gives the impression that they use 'Islamic terrorism' more to scapegoat a minority group than to be honest about the situation (not saying that's what you're doing, just an observation about republican politicians).

I'm not sure what your purpose is in talking about Muslim immigration.

It doesn't matter what their intentions are when it comes to how important an issue is to address; it matters what actually happens. Domestically, Muslim terrorists are less harmful overall than right-wing/Christian terrorists.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Is that you define religions based on their 'holy' texts? If that's the case, then Christianity and Islam are pretty much equally evil.
I mean, I guess you could say that Islam is slightly more evil, because the Bible is apart of Islam in addition to the Koran...

If you have an obscene amount of time at your disposal, you could calculate the ratio of encouraging evil to encouraging good in the literal interpretation of the Quran and Bible.

Unless I am misunderstanding this, it is misleading to say that the Quran contains the Bible as it implies it contains it in its entirety. This is false as the Quran only recognizes three sets of biblical books to be genuine divine revelation.

[EquALLity]

^Oh, thanks, whoops.

Unless I am misunderstanding this

Nope, I was misunderstanding.